C L I N I C A L A N D E X P E R I M E N T A L

OPTOMETRY

INVITED REVIEW

Progress in the spectacle correction of

presbyopia. Part 2: Modern progressive
lens technologies
Clin Exp Optom 2008; 91: 3: 251–264 DOI:10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x

Darryl J Meister ABOM The first instalment of this two-part series reviewed the fundamental optical principles
Scott W Fisher BSc(Hons) and early development work associated with progressive lenses. Recent progress made in
Carl Zeiss Vision, California, USA advancing the state of the art in progressive lenses will now be presented, with particular
E-mail: scott.fisher@vision.zeiss.com emphasis on ‘free-form’ progressive lenses and the application of ‘wavefront’ technology
in progressive lens design. Because several fundamental concepts were developed in the
Submitted: 13 August 2007 first paper that will serve as the basis for discussions presented in this paper, including the
Revised: 24 October 2007 basic optics and mathematics of progressive lens surfaces, the reader is strongly encour-
Accepted for publication: 31 October aged to review the companion paper.
2007

Key words: free-form, lens design, presbyopia, progressive lenses, spectacle correction, wavefront

LIMITATIONS OF TRADITIONAL,
SEMI-FINISHED LENS DESIGN
Modern progressive lens designs work well
for the majority of wearers, with accep-
tance rates of 90 per cent or more.
Ongoing vision research continues to
make incremental advancements in pro-
gressive lens design by providing lens
designers with greater insights into the
optical qualities most critical to presby-
opes. Lens designers may be approach-
ing a ‘limiting’ class of progressive lens
designs that represent the best overall
balance of optical characteristics necessary
to maximise visual utility for the average
progressive lens wearer. Nevertheless,
the visual requirements of spectacle lens
wearers vary from person to person and it
has long been understood that traditional,
one-size-fits-all progressive lenses will not
be the ideal solution for every progressive
lens wearer.1
By considering the unique visual
requirements of the individual progressive
lens wearer, the optics of the lens design
can be more suitably tailored to each
wearer, maximising wearer satisfaction.
Nevertheless, the economics of offering
mass-produced, semi-finished (that is,
factory-fabricated) progressive lens blanks
in multiple design variations are prohibi-
tive. Each lens design typically requires 60
or more different base curve and addition
power permutations in up to 12 different
lens materials, which necessitates massive
product development and inventory
costs. Therefore, changes to the basic lens
design have been limited to subtle varia-
tions in the optical design of each base
curve and addition power combination
that must work sufficiently well for the
entire prescription range associated with
that particular lens blank. Moreover, as
typically, semi-finished lenses are limited
to a handful of base curve options because
of these inventory constraints, optical per-
formance is ultimately compromised for
many prescriptions.
FREE-FORM PROGRESSIVE LENSES
Fortunately, the advent of ‘free-form’
technology has freed many lens designers
from the constraints of traditional mass
production of lenses by enabling a local
prescription laboratory to deliver progres-
sive lenses designed and produced in ‘real
time’ for a specific wearer. Free-form sur-
facing is simply a manufacturing platform

© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia 251

Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
that allows the on-demand production of
complicated lens designs in a small-scale
production environment. Until now, pro-
gressive lenses had been relegated to a
highly involved, mass production environ-
ment. Free-form surfacing has made pos-
sible the production of complex lens
designs on a per-job basis at the laboratory
level by providing laboratories with the
means to surface progressive and other
complicated lens designs directly onto a
lens blank.
The inherent visual benefit of progres-
sive lenses produced using free-form sur-
facing is minimal compared with similar
lenses produced using traditional lens
casting and surfacing. While arguably the
free-form surfacing process may offer
more precise replication of progressive
lens designs, this benefit relies on meticu-
lous process engineering to ensure lens
surfaces of consistently good quality and
accuracy. In contrast, traditional lens
casting is a highly repeatable process that
delivers relatively consistent quality, albeit
with some loss of fidelity in reproducing
certain lens design features due to fac-
tors such as shrinkage while the liquid
monomer polymerises. Furthermore, al-
though the precision of free-form surfac-
ing is not limited by the availability of hard
lap tools, often stocked in only 0.100 or
0.125 dioptre increments, these lenses
are still held to typical optical tolerances
and subject to manufacturing variances,
particularly in the absence of adequate
process engineering.
When used in conjunction with suffi-
ciently advanced lens design software,
however, a free-form delivery system can
produce a completely arbitrary progres-
sive lens design that has been fully param-
eterised using input specific to the
individual wearer. Consequently, if the
visual and optical requirements of a par-
ticular wearer are known prior to the
optical design stage, it becomes possible to
customise the design of the progressive
lens accordingly. Alternatively, as free-
from surfacing is not subject to the inven-
tory constraints of semi-finished lenses, a
suitable progressive lens may be selected
from a range of possible lens designs, thus
allowing for a greater degree of freedom
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
252
in matching the lens design to the spe-
cific wearer. Therefore, as a ‘technology
enabler’, free-form surfacing can serve as a
critical vehicle to deliver considerable
visual benefits to the wearer. When the
potential for individual progressive lens
production via free-form surfacing is fully
realised, optical performance and wearer
satisfaction are maximised.
It is also possible to use free-form sur-
facing to deliver traditional progressive
lenses on demand, often by mathemati-
cally combining a ‘fixed’ progressive lens
design from a pre-defined surface descrip-
tion file with the prescription sphere and
cylindrical curves normally applied to the
back of the lens blank.2 As the progressive
lens design may be surfaced directly onto
the back of the lens blank along with the
prescription curves, only a small range of
‘pucks’ or semi-finished lens blanks with
spherical front surfaces corresponding to
the desired base curves, is necessary for
lens production, thus obviating the need
for a large inventory of semi-finished pro-
gressive lens blanks. Although there may
be a minor reduction in certain unwanted
magnification effects, free-form progres-
sive lenses of this type essentially replicate
the performance of traditional lenses
made from mass-produced, semi-finished
progressive lens blanks. Consequently,
one should distinguish between so-called
‘’smart’ free-form lenses that are truly cus-
tomised for the wearer in real time and
‘dumb’ free-form lenses that are produced
directly from surface description files
with little optical modification for the
wearer.3
FREE-FORM LENS SURFACING
A ‘traditional’ lens surfacing process
cannot produce the complex surfaces
used for complicated lens designs like pro-
gressive lenses due to limitations in both
the range of possible geometries and the
‘quality’ of surfaces produced by conven-
tional generators. Conventional genera-
tors were designed with an emphasis on
efficient stock removal from simple spheri-
cal and toroidal surfaces of revolution,
which can be smoothed and polished
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Visible ‘wave’
Form error
(Low spatial frequency)
Surface roughness
(High spatial frequency)
Figure 1. The quality of the finish of a
machined surface is often evaluated in
terms of surface roughness (or ‘high’
spatial frequency errors) prior to polish-
ing, whereas the accuracy of the surface is
often evaluated in terms of form errors
(or ‘low’ spatial frequency errors) or
waviness
using rigid (that is, ‘hard’) lap tools of
similar curvature in combination with
various abrasives. Unlike these basic sur-
faces of revolution, complex progressive
surfaces must be smoothed and polished
with flexible (that is, ‘soft’) lap tools, as
the curvature does not remain constant
across the surface.
The accuracy and finish of a machined
surface is generally evaluated for several
different qualities, including surface
roughness prior to polishing and errors
from the desired shape, or form, includ-
ing wavineness (Figure 1). Conventional,
two-axis generators can produce only
simple surfaces of revolution. Newer,
three-axis generators were not designed to
produce complex lens surfaces to the level
of precision and smoothness required for
soft lap polishing. The surface roughness
off both two-axis and three-axis generators
is still relatively high and often compa-
rable in magnitude to the errors in form
necessary to create visible optical effects,
such as ‘waves’. These generators rely on
hard lap tools to correct errors in form
and curvature, while bringing the surface
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
 14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher

Best lens form for minimal astigmatism

20
Axis 1 Diamond tip
Spiral

Front base curve (D)

Axis 2 15
cutting path Common
Axis 3
base curve
10

0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 Pl +5 +10
Lens focal power (D)

Figure 2. Free-form generators use Figure 3. Although modern semi-finished progressive lenses
precise, computer-controlled cutting tech- have broad prescription ranges grouped on a limited number
niques, such as single-point diamond of base curves, ‘best form’ optical principles dictate that each
turning, which are capable of producing lens power ideally requires a unique base curve or aspheric
complex lens surfaces with considerable lens design to eliminate aberrations such as oblique
accuracy and smoothness astigmatism

to a level of smoothness suitable for
polishing.
A free-form lens surfacing process, on
the other hand, can produce highly
complex surfaces like progressive lens
designs in a matter of minutes. Free-
form generators are highly sophisticated
machines capable of producing precise
surfaces of high complexity using a
computer-controlled, single-point cutting
process (Figure 2). Free-form polishers
use flexible, computer-controlled ‘soft lap’
tools capable of polishing the complex lens
surfaces produced by free-form generators.
Common free-form generators use single-
point diamond turning, with a combina-
tion of diamond tools to produce accurate
surfaces of sufficient smoothness that
require only a short polishing cycle using a
soft lap tool, as excess polishing can distort
the surface of the lens.
The 1970s saw the first commercial
applications of computer-numerically-
controlled (CNC) machines for shaping
parts. Over the past 10 years, improve-
ments in machine stiffness, encoder reso-
lution and controller bandwidth have
yielded free-form generators that produce
exceptionally smooth, precise surfaces
that now sufficiently replicate most pro-
gressive lens designs. Moreover, while in
the past free-form surfacing equipment
was extremely expensive, few in number
and largely restricted to precision optics
applications, more affordable free-form
production cells are now available, making
this technology a viable manufacturing
platform for many prescription optical
laboratories.
A typical free-form surfacing process
begins by mathematically modelling a lens
surface. Most commonly, this surface rep-
resents the combination of a progressive
lens design with the required prescription
curves, which will be surfaced onto a
spherical ‘puck’. In a sufficiently advanced
process, this lens surface may also be opti-
cally modified using various parameters
specific to the wearer.4 Alternatively, the
surface may represent optically-optimised
(or ‘atoric’) prescription curves only,
which will be surfaced onto a semi-
finished progressive lens blank with the
progressive lens design prefabricated on
the front surface.5
The final surface is rendered as a digital
cutting file or ‘points’ file, which is trans-
mitted to the computer controller of the
free-form generator. The back surface of a
semi-finished lens blank with a prefabri-
cated front surface is then subjected to a
three-stage cutting process by the gen-
erator, which uses a multi-blade tool for
rough cutting, a polycrystalline diamond
tool for smooth cutting and a natural
diamond tool for a high quality finishing
pass. After generating, the lens blank is
transferred to a free-form polisher, where
it undergoes a computerised polishing
process that uses a dynamically-controlled,
soft lap tool made from a compliant foam
or similar material.
PRESCRIPTION OPTIMISATION
As Figure 3 illustrates, each prescription
power requires a unique ‘best form’ base
curve or aspheric lens design to eliminate
optical aberrations such as oblique astig-
matism.6 The first commercial ‘best form’
lenses used a separate base curve for every
power to maximise optical performance
for every power in the prescription range.7
Modern semi-finished lenses generally
have relatively broad prescription ranges
grouped on a limited number of common
base curves, which compromises optical
performance for many prescriptions.
Additionally, while the use of a unique
lens design may satisfy the optical require-

© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia 253
 14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher

lens, regardless of the base curve of the

lens blank or the specific prescription
Transformations (Figure 4).

COMPENSATED PRESCRIPTIONS

Accurate prescription optimisation relies

on ray tracing a lens-eye model for an
assumed ‘position of wear’, which repre-
sents the intended position of the fitted
Target: Plano Rx, +2.00 Add Initial: +2.00 −1.50 × 45 Optimised: +2.00 −1.50 × 45 spectacle lens with respect to the visual
system of the wearer. Like conventional
Figure 4. A sophisticated prescription optimisation process, used in conjunction with bifocal lenses, traditional progressive
free-form lens surfacing, can achieve the ideal performance of the lens design for lenses are designed to provide the correct
virtually any prescription, as demonstrated by these plots of ray-traced optical astigma- (that is, prescribed) ‘vertex’ powers at
tism. Note the distortion of the viewing zones that occurs due to the prescription in the the distance and near power verification
absence of optimisation. points when measured using a standard
focimeter. In this case, the lens is held with
the back surface normal to the axis of
the instrument—often coincident with the
ments for spherical prescriptions, a each base curve. On the other hand, if optical axis of the lens. This measurement
conventional lens surface cannot simul- the wearer’s specific prescription require- geometry nicely replicates the position of
taneously eliminate the aberrations pro- ments are known before the lens is the trial lenses used during ocular refrac-
duced by both the spherical and cylindri- designed, these prescription values can be tion, as well. As the spectacle lens is gen-
cal meridians of lenses made with sphero- used during the optimisation process. By erally positioned in a very different fitting
cylindrical prescriptions. precisely matching the design of the lens geometry relative to the optics of the eye,
While each individual base curve per- to the intended prescription, excess lens the effects of vertex distance, lens tilt
forms optimally for a single, spherical lens aberrations are eliminated and the and even viewing distance influence the
power, as the prescription deviates further ideal performance of the progressive lens optical powers of the lens as experienced
and further from this ‘optimal’ power, the design is preserved. Fortunately, the indi- by the wearer (Figure 5).
zones of clear vision become restricted as vidualised approach to lens manufactur- The effects of vertex distance on lens
the residual lens aberrations worsen. ing afforded by free-form technology power are generally well understood.
Factors such as lens tilt and prism intro- makes this possible. Tilting a lens produces a form of oblique
duce additional lens aberrations and blur. Prescription optimisation represents the astigmatism that introduces unwanted
Residual lens aberrations are of even application of numerical optimisation cylindrical power and an increase in effec-
greater importance with progressive methods or aspherisation to a free-form tive spherical power. Neutralising these
lenses, as any oblique astigmatism will lens that is designed in ‘real time’ using changes in prescription necessitates small
interact with the unwanted astigmatism of parameters specific to the individual changes to the original sphere, cylinder
the progressive surface. The resulting wearer. Advanced prescription optimisa- and axis, which will depend on both the
cross-cylindrical effects can cause the clear tion techniques generally seek to find the strength of the prescription and the
zones of vision to shift, shrink or rotate, as ‘optimum’ surface that minimises the dif- degree of lens tilt. If the prescription has
regions of the lens designed to be clear ferences between the performance of the been adjusted in this manner by the
become blurred, while certain regions of lens design and the ideal, target perfor- free-form lens supplier, a compensated
blur actually become clearer to the wearer. mance. This is done by manipulating the prescription should be provided, which
These effects reduce the utility of the pro- initial surface until a merit function is mini- represents the vertex powers—for
gressive lens design under both monocu- mised that represents a variety of appropri- power verification purposes—necessary to
lar and binocular viewing conditions. ately weighted optical and geometric provide the wearer with the intended
In semi-finished optical design, the properties, including the distributions of prescription when the lenses are worn.
application of numerical optimisation power and unwanted astigmatism. The net For a relatively thin spherical lens, the
methods or asphericity can maximise the result of this optimisation process is a compensated spherical power SCOMP and
optical performance of the lens design for complex ‘aspherisation’ of the initial pro- cylindrical power CCOMP required to
a single prescription, which generally cor- gressive lens surface that achieves the ideal, achieve an effective spherical power SRX,
responds to the median spherical power of ‘best form’ optical performance require- once the lens has been tilted by an angle q,
the prescription range associated with ments across the viewing zones of the are given by:

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008 © 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
254 Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
 14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher

changes to the prescribed addition power

may also be necessary.
In some cases, the free-form lens sup-
plier may choose to constrain the prescrip-
Vertex tion optimisation at the distance and near
power verification points to preclude the
‘Near’ object use of compensated prescriptions. While
at infinity prescription optimisation will still improve
t the overall optics of the lens in the
objec absence of prescription compensation,
N ear
Instrument axis the free-form lens supplier compromises
normal to back optical performance slightly in this case
for the sake of simpler dispensing. The
Tilt reduction in potential optical perfor-
mance within the central viewing zones
Focimeter measurement Position of wear will depend on the strength of the original
prescription and the fitting geometry.
Figure 5. The optical performance of the lens as measured by a focimeter may differ
significantly from the optical performance when the lens is worn
POSITION-OF-WEAR
CUSTOMISATION

Various position of wear parameters must

be assumed while ray tracing the lens
design during prescription optimisation,
including the vertex distance, pantoscopic
(vertical) tilt, face-form (horizontal) wrap
and preferred reading distance. Often,
‘default’ values are used, which represent
reasonable averages from the population.
Nevertheless, these fitting parameters vary
considerably among spectacle wearers. For
instance in practice, lens tilt ranges from
zero to 20 degrees. Moreover, significant
-4.00 in trial frame -4.00 in extreme fitting
differences in the position of wear or
fitting geometry can have a noticeable
Figure 6. Extreme position-of-wear fitting geometries can
impact on the optical performance of the
have a marked effect on optical performance compared to the
lens as perceived by the wearer, as demon-
fitting geometry of the trial frame, particularly in higher pre-
strated in Figure 6.
scriptions, as demonstrated by adding 15 degrees of panto-
Position-of-wear customisation relies on
scopic tilt and 10 degrees of face-form wrap to this -4.00 D
fine-tuning the lens design during the pre-
progressive lens
scription optimisation process for the
wearer’s position of wear parameters. This
maximises the optical performance of the
lens design, regardless of the fitting geom-
S RX 90 degrees for face-form wrap. In the etry of the lens. Position of wear measure-
SCOMP =
sin2θ presence of prescribed cylindrical power, ments must be supplied to the free-form
1+ prism, combined pantoscopic and face- surfacing laboratory and the gain in
2n
. . . Compensated sphere [1] form tilt or substantial lens thickness, accuracy realised during the optimisation
more complicated mathematics are neces- process will depend on the number of
CCOMP = -SCOMP ⋅ sin2θ
sary.8 Due to the highly oblique angles additional position-of-wear measurements
. . . Compensated cylinder [2]
of gaze used during near vision and to provided. These measurements can be
where n is the refractive index of the lens. the differences in near vision effectivity taken with a variety of devices that range
The compensated axis of the cylinder is at or as a result of vergence changes through from inexpensive hand-held dispensing
180 degrees for pantoscopic tilt and at curved lenses of non-negligible thickness, tools to extremely accurate computerised

© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia 255

Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
Figure 7. Dispensing tools for taking
accurate position-of-wear measurements
include highly sophisticated digital centra-
tion systems capable of capturing a variety
of measurements (photo courtesy of Carl
Zeiss Vision GmbH)
centration systems that capture these
measurements automatically from digital
images of the wearer (Figure 7).
ADVANCED FORMS OF
CUSTOMISATION
Prescription optimisation and position-
of-wear customisation fine-tune the basic
progressive lens design to ensure consis-
tent optical performance, regardless of the
wearer’s prescription requirements or
fitting geometry. These forms of free-form
customisation simply replicate the ‘ideal’
performance of the basic lens design.
Advanced forms of customisation are also
available that allow lens designers to
further improve visual performance and
satisfaction by significantly modifying the
basic progressive lens design based on
information specific to the individual wea-
rer. These advanced forms of customisa-
tion realise the full potential of free-form
technology by providing the wearer with tr-
ulyindividualised progressivelens designs.
The ‘degrees of freedom’ available to
the progressive lens designer include, but
are not necessarily limited to, the length
of the progressive corridor, the relative
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
256
Zone width
HARD
SOFT
T
R
O
SH
G
N
LO
Corridor length
Figure 8. The degrees of freedom available for manipulating
the geometry of a progressive lens design represent a multi-
dimensional customisation space of lens design possibilities
balance between the size of the distance
zone and the size of the near zone and the
relative balance between the size of the
central viewing zones and the softness of
the periphery. The ability to manipulate
these variables in real time affords the lens
designer with a multi-dimensional cust-
omisation space of lens design possibili-
ties, as illustrated in Figure 8.
With sufficiently advanced software
tools capable of real-time optical design, a
free-form lens supplier can generate a
completely arbitrary lens design that has
been fully parameterised using values spe-
cific to the wearer. Alternatively, an appro-
priate lens design that best matches the
wearer may be selected from a range of
possible lens designs, in lieu of the more
complex and resource-intensive process of
optical design in real time. The customisa-
tion afforded by this latter approach will
be limited by the number of suitable
options available in the free-form lens sup-
plier’s repository of possible lens designs,
including the number of lens designs
available with unique corridor lengths,
unique viewing zone balances and so on.
Of course, determining how to best
manipulate these lens design parameters
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Degrees of freedom
FAR NEAR Zone
balance
Multi-dimensional
customisation space
for a given wearer requires the application
of extensive vision science and clinical
research. In some cases, new dispensing
technologies designed to capture critical
measurements and wearer comment may
be required. Advanced free-form lens
designs are available that are tailored to
the wearer’s chosen frame style, visual
demands typical of the wearer’s lifestyle
and physiological behavioural patterns
captured from biometric measurements of
the wearer.
FRAME STYLE CUSTOMISATION
Most general-purpose progressive lenses
are designed to work well in conserva-
tive frame styles. While many modern
progressives will perform adequately at
18 mm or even 17 mm fitting heights,
many lens designs may not achieve
optimal optical performance with fitting
heights below 20 mm to 22 mm.
Although various ‘short corridor’ pro-
gressive lenses are now available for
shorter fitting heights, these lens designs
are not without their compromises. The
shorter the length of the progressive cor-
ridor, the more the optics of the lens
design must be ‘compressed’, leaving
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
 14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher

Wide distance

+1
.7
+1

5
.75

Wide near

‘Long corridor’ design ‘Short corridor’ design ‘Distance priority’ design ‘Near priority’ design

Figure 9. The geometry of a progressive lens design can be Figure 10. The geometry of a progressive lens design can be
customised based on the size of the frame by altering the customised based on visual lifestyle requirements by altering
corridor length of the lens design the balance between the size of the distance viewing zone and
the size of the near zone

wearers to tolerate reduced intermediate
utility, higher levels of peripheral blur,
and/or narrower viewing zones, in accor-
dance with Minkwitz’s theorem.
Moreover, many recent short-corridor
progressive lenses have been engineered
for ultra-small frames requiring extremely
short fitting heights. Eye-care profession-
als may be forced to choose between lens
designs engineered to work well either in
conservative frames or in ultra-small
frames and to determine the fitting height
at which to switch from one to the other.
Inevitably, unless the corridor length of
the chosen lens design happens to coin-
cide with the optimal length required for a
particular wearer’s chosen frame style, the
wearer will experience unnecessary optical
compromises.
Frame style customisation relies on
matching the corridor length of the lens
design to the chosen frame style, based
on the fitting height measurement and
possibly other frame dimensions, to maxi-
mise near vision utility without unneces-
sarily compromising optical performance
in other regions of the lens (Figure 9).
Typically, this customisation is based on
the standard fitting height measurement
supplied to the laboratory. A progressive
lens design having the most suitable cor-
ridor length for the frame can then be
chosen from a range of two or more cor-
ridor length options or the corridor
length of the design may be continuously
varied over a range of possible values
with the use of sufficiently advanced
software.
In addition to customisation based on
fitting height or frame size, it is also pos-
sible to manipulate the optics and form of
the lens based on the overall ‘shape’ of the
frame and other opto-mechanical require-
ments. For instance, the optics and form
of the lens design can be tailored to facili-
tate glazing in exotic frames styles or the
use of non-standard base curves. With the
increasing popularity of steeply curved
and highly wrapped eyewear, which often
necessitate a relatively complex atoric
lens design for optimal performance, this
application of free-form technology is
becoming increasingly relevant.
LIFESTYLE CUSTOMISATION
The ideal progressive lens design for a
given wearer will depend in no small part
on the visual demands specific to the
wearer’s lifestyle. Preference for progres-
sive lens designs can vary with the unique
visual needs of the wearer.9 Progressive
lens wearers more frequently engaged in
tasks associated with far vision often prefer
lens designs with larger distance zones,
whereas wearers with greater near vision
demands may prefer lens designs with
larger near zones (Figure 10). Moreover, a
low hyperope who wears spectacles only
while reading may prefer a larger near
zone, whereas a low myope who removes
the spectacles to read may prefer a larger
distance zone.
Lifestyle customisation relies on assess-
ing the relative visual demands of the
wearer to determine the ideal balance
between the distance and near viewing
zones of the lens design. Relevant lifestyle
information may be captured using com-
puter screening or a questionnaire. A pro-
gressive lens design having the most
suitable viewing zone configuration for
the wearer can then be chosen from a
range of lens designs or the viewing zone
balance of the design may be continuously
varied to match the exact balance indi-
cated for the wearer.
The relative suitability of common pro-
gressive lens designs for different viewing
tasks has been evaluated previously.10
Many of these lens designs are positioned
as ‘general-purpose’ lenses in the market-
place, suggesting that these lens designs
do not intentionally differ from a viewing
zone balance consistent with equal dis-
tance and near vision requirements. The
range of possible viewing zone balances
available is therefore limited. Customised
progressive lenses delivered via free-form
lens surfacing are not constrained by the
same limitations in availability. Addi-
tionally, while choosing one of these

© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia 257
 14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher

Softer gradients Wider zones

‘Head mover’ design ‘Eye mover’ design

Figure 11. The geometry of a progressive lens design can be
customised based on head-tracking data and other forms of
biometric feedback by altering the balance between the size of
the central viewing zones and the gradients of addition power
and astigmatism
Figure 12. For biometrically-customised
progressive lens designs, special head-
tracking devices are required (photo cour-
tesy of Carl Zeiss Vision GmbH)

lens designs based on measurements of
viewing zone size offers some degree of
freedom, this relies on an accurate assess-
ment of the optical performance of each
lens, which may not be readily accessible.
BIOMETRIC CUSTOMISATION
Individuals vary in their habitual head
movement propensity for a given angle of
gaze, especially when fixating objects at
significant lateral viewing angles. The
ratio of the angle of head rotation to the
total angle of gaze is known as ‘gain’, so
that gain is equal to head angle divided by
gaze angle. Gain ranges from zero (for eye
movement only) to 100 per cent (for head
movement only). Individuals who tend to
exhibit habitually higher gain, or relative
head movement, are frequently referred
to as ‘head movers’, whereas individuals
who exhibit lower gain are referred to as
‘eye movers’.11,12
For some wearers, the limited width of
the viewing zones of a progressive lens may
restrict lateral eye movement, necessitat-
ing an increase in head movement gain by
the wearer.13 Even when eye movement is
not significantly restricted, reading effi-
ciency may be noticeably reduced by nar-
rower viewing zones, subsequent to an
increase in gaze stabilisation time and in
the number of reading regressions.14
These factors may contribute to the adap-
tation problems experienced by some pro-
gressive lens wearers.
Consequently, eye movers may benefit
from the use of progressive lens designs
with wider central viewing zones, whereas
head movers will fixate an object with a
ballistic eye movement, during which
vision is suppressed, while initiating a
much slower compensatory head move-
ment. During this head movement, the
visual field may be disrupted by the chang-
ing prismatic and magnification effects of
the progressive lens design as the gaze
remains relatively stable. Therefore, head
movers may benefit from designs with
softer gradients of power and astigmatism
that minimise image swim, skew distortion
and other optical imaging defects associ-
ated with prismatic and magnification gra-
dients (Figure 11).
Biometric customisation relies on the
measurement of the physiological interac-
tion of the wearer with his or her visual
environment. For biometrically custom-
ised progressive lenses, a head-tracking
device or similar instrument is required.
Head-tracking measurements are cap-
tured by a computer during key viewing
tasks, which often involve either fixating
flashes of light presented at two lateral
viewing angles or performing a reading
task (Figure 12). Again, the progressive
lens design having the most suitable geom-
etry for the wearer can be chosen from a
range of possible lens designs, or the
geometry of the design may be continu-
ously varied to match the exact balance
indicated for the wearer, depending on
the sophistication of the free-form sup-
plier’s software tools.
LENS SURFACE CONFIGURATION
With two separate surfaces to work with,
the optical design and prescription com-
ponents of a free-form progressive lens
can be applied to the lens blank in a
variety of possible configurations. Each
configuration represents a particular com-
bination of factory-finished, traditionally-
surfaced and free-form-surfaced lens
curves. The lens surfaces range in com-
plexity from simple spherical to optimised
progressive surfaces that have been com-
bined with the spherical and cylindrical
prescription curves.
As described earlier, a common con-
figuration employs a semi-finished spheri-
cal surface on the front and a free-form
progressive surface on the back that has
been combined with the normal prescrip-
tion curves. In this case, the actual pro-
gressive lens design is directly surfaced.
An alternative approach employs a semi-
finished (that is, prefabricated) progres-

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008 © 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
258 Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia

Comparable astigmatism
‘Dual surface’ design
Figure 13. The ray-traced optical astigmatism for a ‘dual
surface’ progressive lens design and a conventional front-
surface lens design that has been similarly optimised are vir-
tually identical
sive surface on the front and free-form-
surfaced prescription curves on the back
that have been optically optimised. There
is also a class of ‘dual surface’ configura-
tion that employs a partial or ‘split’ pro-
gressive surface on the front and a partial
progressive surface on the back that has
been combined with the prescription
curves.15
While some free-form lens suppliers
have claimed that ‘splitting’ the progres-
sive design between the front and back
surfaces reduces unwanted astigmatism,
the actual differences in performance are
generally small. Because a typical spectacle
lens represents an ‘optical system’ of fairly
negligible thickness, the optics of each
surface are essentially additive. The
optical powers across the lens can be dis-
tributed between both surfaces with very
little change in effective optical perfor-
mance. Consequently, the placement of
the actual progressive optics, whether on
the front surface, the back surface or split
between both, has very little impact on the
inherent unwanted astigmatism of the lens
design (Figure 13).
The magnitude of astigmatism pro-
duced by a progressive lens design is not
significantly influenced by the choice of
surface placement. Nevertheless, there
may be some minor optical benefits in the
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
‘Front surface’ design
use of a back-surface progressive lens con-
figuration. While the vertex power will
remain unchanged, the equivalent power
and magnification across the lens will vary
depending on the surface used for the
progressive optics. In particular, differ-
ences in curvature on the front surface
will contribute to spectacle magnification
effects. Therefore, a slight reduction in
skew distortion may be obtained when the
progressive surface is placed on the back.
Additionally, because the ‘limiting aper-
ture’ of the lens—delineated by the zones
of clear vision—is brought closer to the
eye, slightly wider fields of view may be
obtained when the progressive optics are
placed on the back.
For free-form lens suppliers, the choice
of free-form surface configuration is often
influenced by many non-optical factors,
such as ease of manufacturing and any
limitations imposed by existing patents
and similar intellectual properties. For
instance, back-surface progressive lens
configurations limit the number of sur-
faces that must be ‘worked’, which offers
certain production advantages while elimi-
nating the potential for misalignment
between the front and back surfaces.
Front-surface progressive lens configura-
tions, on the other hand, may be available
in a wider prescription range, since the
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
rear prescription surface is not limited by
the dynamic range of free-form surfacing
equipment.
WAVEFRONT CORRECTIONS IN
SPECTACLE LENSES
Recently, there has been a great deal of
interest in ‘wavefront’ technology as
applied to both refractive surgery and
spectacle lenses. Of course, this interest is
primarily driven by recent advances in
laser refractive surgery that allow surgeons
to reduce the ‘high-order’ aberrations of
the eye, in addition to the traditional
spherical and cylindrical refractive errors,
using wavefront-guided ablation. The ulti-
mate goal of wavefront-guided refractive
surgery is to achieve supernormal vision,
with better than ‘normal’ visual acuity and
contrast sensitivity or at least to improve
post-operative results compared to tradi-
tional refractive surgery.
Several spectacle lens manufacturers
are now marketing lens designs that mini-
mise higher-order wavefront aberrations.
These spectacle lenses generally fall into
one of two categories: either those that are
claimed to reduce the high-order aberra-
tions of the spectacle lens or those that are
claimed to reduce the high-order ocular
aberrations of the eye. Unfortunately,
there has been considerable confusion in
the marketplace surrounding the applica-
tion of this technology to ophthalmic
lens design. It is important to distinguish
between the correction of the wavefront
aberrations of the eye and the wavefront
aberrations of a spectacle lens.
REVIEW OF WAVEFRONT
ABERRATIONS
It is now well understood that wavefront
aberrations represent one of several pos-
sible ways to characterise the optical errors
of a lens or system. At any point across the
aperture of the system, such as the pupil of
the eye, the wavefront error is the separa-
tion, or difference in optical path length,
between the actual wavefront and the
ideal wavefront. In the presence of uncor-
rected refractive errors and other optical
aberrations, the actual wavefront is often
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
259

Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
7 8
Increase in
6 surface power
7 8
1.5
1.0
6
0.5
2.0
8
6 7
Figure 14. The progression of addition power across a pro-
gressive lens surface causes the power to vary over the finite
diameter of the wearer’s pupil, introducing a coma-like wave-
front aberration
flatter or steeper than necessary and dis-
torted in shape. After the errors in height
between the aberrated wavefront and the
ideal wavefront surface have been deter-
mined, these error measurements are typi-
cally fitted with one of several possible sets
of basis functions. These functions allow
the complex shape of the wavefront errors
to be broken down, or decomposed, into
an assortment of more basic component
shapes.
One of the most common sets of basis
functions used in ophthalmic optics is
the Zernike polynomial series.16 Each
Zernike function, referred to as a mode,
comprises a radial order component indi-
cating the variation of the function from
the centre of the pupil and a meridional
frequency component indicating the
number of sinusoidal repetitions of the
radial component around the pupil. Each
Zernike mode is associated with a particu-
lar type of optical error, or wavefront
aberration, allowing the wavefront errors
to be described as a combination of
quantities of more basic optical aberra-
tions. Individual Zernike modes are com-
monly grouped by their radial order,
which indicates the increasing depen-
dence of the modes on pupil size:
• Low-order aberrations are Zernike
modes of the ‘second order’ and
lower. Second-order aberrations
include defocus and astigmatism,
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
260
0.5
6 mm
0.5 1.0
pupil
1.5
Surface optics
vary over pupil
which are essentially equal to errors in
spherical power and cylindrical power
and are usually the most detrimental to
the quality of vision for normal eyes.
The zeroth-order (that is, piston) and
first-order (that is, tilt) modes are gen-
erally neglected in measurements of
image quality.
• High-order aberrations are the remain-
ing Zernike modes of the ‘third order’
and higher. High-order aberrations
include coma, trefoil, spherical aberra-
tion and so on. High-order aberrations
generally have less impact on quality of
vision in normal eyes and are usually
not of consequence until the lower-
order aberrations of defocus and
astigmatism have been substantially
ameliorated.17
Additionally, each Zernike mode has a
coefficient associated with it indicating the
quantity of that particular Zernike aberra-
tion in the wavefront surface. The overall
magnitude of the wavefront errors is often
stated in terms of the RMS (or root-mean-
square) error of the wavefront. The RMS
error is essentially equal to the stand-
ard deviation—a statistical measure of
variation—of the wavefront errors from
the ideal wavefront across the reference
pupil. The RMS wavefront error can be
calculated directly from Zernike coeffi-
cients by taking the square root of the sum
of the squares of the coefficients.
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WAVEFRONT ABERRATIONS IN
PROGRESSIVES
The second-order Zernike aberrations
produced by conventional spectacle
lenses, referred to as oblique astigmatism
and power error (that is, defocus), are
generally minimised with the use of ‘best
form’ base curves or aspheric lens designs.
Conventional single vision and bifocal
spectacle lenses typically produce only
negligible levels of higher-order Zernike
aberrations in most prescription powers,
as the relatively small pupil diameter of
the eye effectively ‘stops down’ the aber-
rated ray bundle, thereby reducing the
resulting point spread of the image.
On the other hand, progressive lenses
can produce significant levels of certain
higher-order aberrations, in addition to
second-order aberrations, due to the varia-
tion in refractive power and astigmatism
across the progressive surface.
In progressive lens design, the second-
order aberrations are due to unwanted
surface astigmatism and excessive addition
power for a given viewing distance, which
causes defocus. Moreover, because pro-
gressive lens surfaces use continuously
changing curvatures, which are associated
with the second derivatives of the surface,
to produce a progressive change in addi-
tion power, this class of surfaces has
non-zero third derivatives. Consequently,
progressive lenses produce certain levels
of the higher-order wavefront aberrations
associated with the third derivatives of a
surface, specifically, the third-order aber-
rations of coma and trefoil.
The presence of coma across a progres-
sive lens surface can be deduced from
Figure 14. Classic coma is due to an asym-
metric variation in refractive power and
magnification across the lens for off-axis
object points. The change in refractive
power across a progressive lens surface
produces a very similar effect. As the line
of sight passes down the progressive corri-
dor of the lens, the power at the upper
margin of the pupil differs from the power
at the lower margin by an amount roughly
equal to the product of the pupil diameter
and the rate of change in add power at
that particular location. In fact, coma is
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision

Y X
Zernike coma (Z 3 )
-1
Figure 15. The action of a simple progressive lens surface can be described by a com-
bination of vertical coma and oblique trefoil wavefront aberrations
directly proportional to the rate of change
in mean addition power.
Some additional insight into the nature
of wavefront aberrations in progressive
lenses may be deduced by comparing the
shape of a progressive lens surface directly
with the functions used to build a given
wavefront (Figure 15). The Zernike basis
functions used to represent the contribu-
tion of vertical coma (Z3-1) and oblique
trefoil (Z3-3) to the overall shape of a wave-
front surface are given by the following
functions in Cartesian form:18
Z 3-1 = N (3 yx 2 + 3 y 3 - 2 y )
. . . Vertical coma
Z 3-3 = N (3 yx 2 - y 3 )
. . . Oblique trefoil
where N is a normalising term equal to √8
for the third-order Zernike aberrations.
Neglecting the linear (2y) term from the
coma function, as this term represents
only the contribution of lower-order tilt or
prism, the sum of these two functions is
given by:
f ZZ (x , y ) = Z 3-1 + Z 3-3 = 2 8 ( y 3 + 3 yx 2 )
This equation is identical in form to that
of the simple ‘elephant trunk’ progressive
lens model described in the companion
paper, namely:19
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
dividing each by the maximum pupil
radius r:
⎡⎛ y ⎞ y⎛x⎞ ⎤
3 2
f ZZ (x , y ) = 2 8 ⎢⎜ ⎟ + 3 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ρ ⎠ ρ ⎝ ρ⎠ ⎦
2 8 3
= ( y + 3 yx 2 ) [8]
ρ3
Next, the refractive power of the elephant
trunk surface z is expressed in terms of a
wavefront profile function w, in microns,
using:
Y X
w (x , y ) = z (x , y )⋅1000(n - 1)
g
-3
Zernike trefoil (Z 3 ) = ( y 3 + 3 yx 2 ) ⋅1000(n - 1) [9]
6
however, since g is given by Equation 7:
δ Add
g=
1000(n - 1)
the wavefront profile function simplifies
to:
g 3 δ Add 2
z (x , y ) = ( y + 3 yx 2 ) w (x , y ) = ( y + 3 yx 2 )
6 6
. . . Elephant trunk surface [6] . . . Wavefront profile [10]
The combined Zernike basis functions
where g is related to the power law (dAdd),
are then equated to the wavefront profile
or rate of change in addition power, of the
function of the elephant trunk surface:
lens design as follows:
2 8 3 δ Add 3
δ Add C3 ( y + 3 yx 2 ) = ( y + 3 yx 2 ) [11]
g= [7] ρ3 6
1000(n - 1)
where C3 is the Zernike coefficient of
Consequently, this simple progressive the combined third-order coma and
lens surface is similar in shape to a combi- trefoil functions. This coefficient essen-
nation of Zernike vertical coma and tially represents the amount by which to
Zernike oblique trefoil. The progression ‘scale’ the coma and trefoil functions to
of addition power across the lens surface produce the desired wavefront profile of
[3]
essentially acts as a coma-like wave- the elephant trunk progressive surface. It
front aberration over the entire ‘aperture’ is also equal to the RMS wavefront error of
[4] of the progressive zone, while the the Zernike modes. Cancelling like terms
astigmatism-free umbilic is the result of a and solving for the Zernike coefficient C3
trefoil-like wavefront aberration over the yields:
same region. The magnitude of these two δ Add 2
Zernike modes depends on the addition w (x , y ) = ( y + 3 yx 2 )
6
and corridor length of the lens. . . . Wavefront profile [12]
An analytical model has been
described for computing the third-order This demonstrates that the simple pro-
wavefront aberrations of the elephant gressive lens model presented earlier pro-
[5] trunk surface.20 This analytical model can duces equal amounts of third-order coma
be derived with the aid of some basic and trefoil wavefront aberrations, which
algebraic manipulation. Zernike func- are constant over the progressive region of
tions are calculated over a unit circle. the surface. This is to be expected, as this
Therefore, the x and y terms of these simple progressive lens surface has con-
functions must first be normalised by stant third derivatives. Moreover, these
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
261

Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
Regions of
high coma
we
po
an
Me
Coma and mean add power
Figure 16. High-order aberrations in a progressive lens are
greatest in regions where the addition power and astigmatism
are changing most rapidly, particularly in the vicinity of the
central viewing zones and within the progressive corridor
aberrations are proportional to the rate of
change in addition power (dAdd) along
the umbilic of the lens surface. Addition-
ally, this equation for the Zernike
coefficient demonstrates the pupil size
dependence (r3) of the third-order
wavefront aberrations produced by a pro-
gressive lens.
Unlike the simple progressive lens
model presented earlier, modern pro-
gressive lenses employ non-circular cross-
sections and a power law that varies
non-linearly along the corridor. Neverthe-
less, the third-order aberrations in these
lenses will vary with the rate of change
in surface power at any point. Coma
and trefoil will be highest in regions
wherein the addition power and surface
astigmatism are changing most rapidly
(Figure 16). Moreover, as high-order
aberrations are dependent on the rate of
change in surface power, these aberra-
tions will be more significant in progres-
sive lenses with shorter corridor lengths or
higher addition powers, in accordance
with Minkwitz’s theorem.
Recently, progressive lens designers
have begun paying closer attention to
high-order aberrations and in some cases,
even patenting progressive lens designs
with reduced high-order aberrations, such
as coma.21 Unfortunately, you cannot
eliminate the high-order aberrations pro-
duced by a progressive lens surface, just as
you cannot eliminate unwanted surface
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
262
Regions of m
r high trefoil tis
a
t igm
As
Trefoil and astigmatism
astigmatism. In fact, for modern progres-
sive lens designs at least, average levels of
high-order aberrations calculated globally
over the central lens surface are often
similar in magnitude.22 Nevertheless, both
the low- and high-order aberrations in a
progressive lens can be managed.
Just as there are two general approaches
to the management of second-order
astigmatism, by either spreading it out to
‘soften’ the design or confining it to
smaller regions to ‘harden’ the design,
there are also two intimately related
approaches to the management of third-
order aberrations. A ‘soft’ lens design with
gradual power changes will frequently
yield relatively low levels of high-order
aberrations over the entire lens, whereas a
‘hard’ lens design with rapid power
changes will yield lower levels of high-
order aberrations in the central distance
and near viewing zones, while creating
greater levels at the viewing zone bound-
aries and within the progressive corridor.
In general, for a given corridor length,
minimising high-order aberrations in any
particular region will be at the expense of
inducing higher levels of high-order aber-
rations elsewhere.
Although higher-order aberrations may
result in a reduction in image quality and
a loss of contrast, low-order aberrations
generally account for the greatest impact
on the quality of vision in progressive
lenses. In particular, unwanted astigma-
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
tism dominates much of the lens surface.
Further, in contrast to the case of low-
order aberrations, clinical research has
demonstrated that the high-order aberra-
tions in progressive lenses are seldom any
greater in magnitude than the inherent
high-order aberrations of a typical eye.23
Research has also demonstrated that
the impact of high-order aberrations on
visual acuity in the progressive corridor,
where these aberrations are often highest,
is negligible. Additionally, the caustic
focus produced in the presence of small
amounts of high-order aberrations may
improve the wearer’s depth-of-focus and
tolerance to the blur caused by the
second-order aberrations of the lens. In
fact, aberration coupling between the
high-order aberrations of the progressive
lens and the high-order aberrations of
the eye can sometimes yield better visual
acuity than in the naked eye.24 Neverthe-
less, the high-order aberrations produced
by a progressive lens will have some impact
on the wearer’s vision and therefore, rep-
resent a meaningful quantity to evaluate
during the optical design process.
SPECTACLE CORRECTION OF
OCULAR ABERRATIONS
It should be emphasised that, in general,
minimising the high-order wavefront aber-
rations produced by a spectacle lens will
not provide the wearer with better than his
or her best visual acuity. The high-order
aberrations of the eye can only be reduced
after first measuring the eye with a wave-
front sensor, such as an aberrometer and
then precisely customising an optical com-
ponent based on those measurements,25
however, the technical limitations invo-
lved in the spectacle correction of high-
order ocular aberrations make the
application of this type of technology chal-
lenging, if not prohibitive.
Spectacle lenses cannot eliminate high-
order aberrations over a wide field of view
without introducing additional, lower-
order wavefront aberrations, as the eye
rotates from the centre of any ‘ideal’ wave-
front correction that has eliminated
high-order aberrations. For instance, cor-
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision

recting second-order aberrations results in
induced first-order prism as the eye moves
from the centre of the correction (that is,
Prentice’s rule), while correcting third-
order aberrations results in induced errors
in second-order astigmatism and defocus.
This effect can be appreciated to some
extent by adding a horizontal or vertical
offset to the terms of a Zernike function
and then expanding the new binomials,
so that a term such as 2x2 becomes
2(x + Dx)2 = 2x2 + 4xDx + 2Dx2 in the pres-
ence of a horizontal offset (Dx)—now with
lower-order 4xDx and 2Dx2 terms.
Just a few millimetres of movement of
the line of sight from the centre of an
ideal wavefront correction will introduce
new, lower-order wavefront errors that
are actually greater in magnitude than
the higher-order aberrations initially
eliminated and these errors will progres-
sively worsen with increasing movement.26
As the human eye remains in a constant
state of movement, correcting the high-
order aberrations of the eye with a spec-
tacle lens frequently results in poorer
quality of vision than leaving the high-
order aberrations uncorrected. Thus,
the sensitivity of high-order aberrations
to alignment errors during normal gaze
changes places severe limits on the
potential benefits derived from correct-
ing these aberrations with a spectacle
lens. Moreover, for the correction of
presbyopia with progressive lenses, which
suffer from significant second-order aber-
rations, the gross optical performance of
the progressive lens design will undoubt-
edly serve as a greater indicator of wearer
satisfaction.
Although there are significant optical
limitations associated with eliminating the
high-order aberrations of the eye with a
traditional spectacle lens, it may be pos-
sible to determine better second-order
spectacle corrections by considering the
effects of these aberrations. Conventional
autorefractors have not replaced subjec-
tive refraction as the best method to deter-
mine the final second-order spectacle
prescription for an individual and even
subjective refraction suffers from variabil-
ity and limits in measurement precision.
The optimum prescription is influenced
© 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher
not only by the second-order refractive
errors but also by the higher-order aberra-
tions of the eye and the neural processing
of the visual system. Determining the end-
point of refraction by taking into account
the effects of high-order aberrations on
power and blur, as well as the neural pro-
cessing of the visual system, may result in
more accurate and repeatable second-
order prescriptions.27
FUTURE OF PROGRESSIVE
LENS DESIGN
In the 100 years since progressive lenses
were first described, the design and manu-
facture of these lenses has ebbed and
flowed between enabling technologies
and the lens designs they can produce.
Each advance in manufacturing technol-
ogy has facilitated further advances in lens
design. In particular, the introduction of
numerically-controlled cutting and high-
speed computing set the stage for a rapid
expansion of progressive lens production
and design innovation toward the end of
the 1970s. By the late 1980s, continued
research and development between com-
peting lens manufacturers had yielded
significantly improved progressive lens
designs that quickly became the preferred
choice of vision correction for presbyopia.
Incremental advancements in progres-
sive lens design have continued through
ongoing vision research, however, over
the past decade, the most significant trend
in progressive lens design has been the
emergence of free-form manufacturing
technologies that facilitate the design and
production of progressive lens surfaces in
real time. This technology makes possible
the application of various forms of lens
design customisation for the individual
wearer. Free-form lens surfacing has also
allowed progressive lens manufacturing
to shift partially from mass production
at centralised manufacturing sites to
on-demand production at local prescrip-
tion laboratories.
The customisation and sophistication of
lens designs will play an increasing role in
free-form technology, as lens suppliers
attempt to differentiate their products by
offering more wearer benefits that can be
14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
realised only through this type of manu-
facturing platform. Moreover, as addi-
tional input data are often required to
implement many forms of customisation,
dispensing technologies may play an
increasingly important role. Currently, the
sophistication of free-form lens designs
varies considerably among lens suppliers.
Some free-form lens suppliers offer lenses
that are virtually identical in performance
to comparable mass-produced lenses,
whereas other free-form lens suppliers
offer highly customised progressive lenses
that are designed for the individual
wearer. It seems likely that these two
paths—low-cost manufacturing and spe-
cialised customisation—will continue to
be developed in parallel.
Additionally, interest in the application
of wavefront technology to spectacle
lenses has continued to increase. While
the optical limitations involved may pre-
clude correcting the high-order aberra-
tions of the eye with a spectacle lens, lens
designers will continue to explore the
impact of optical design on the high-order
aberrations of the spectacle lens. With
increasing numbers of aberrometers
appearing in practices, the drive to
determine more accurate second-order
refractions by considering the effects of
higher-order ocular aberrations may also
become more widespread.
REFERENCES
1. Fowler C. Recent trends in progressive
power lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998;
18: 234–237.
2. Mukaiyama H, Kato K. Progressive Multifo-
cal Lens and Manufacturing Method of Eye-
glass Lens and Progressive Multifocal Lens.
US Patent 6,019,470, 2000.
3. Meister D. Free-form surfacing technology
makes possible new levels of optical sophis-
tication for spectacles. Refract Eyecare Oph-
thalmol 2005; 9: 29–32.
4. Hof A, Hanssen A. Spectacle Lens with
Spherical Front Side and Multifocal Back
Side and Process for Its Production. US
Patent 6,089,713, 2000.
5. Kelch G, Lahres H, Wietschorke H. Spec-
tacle Lens. US Patent 5,444,503, 1995.
6. Fry G. Choosing the base curve for an oph-
thalmic lens. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1978;
55: 238–248.
7. Von Rohr M. Toric Spectacle Glass. US
Patent 989,645, 1911.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008
263
 14440938, 2008, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00246.x by Cochrane Poland, Wiley Online Library on [06/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Progress in the spectacle correction of presbyopia. Part 2 Meister and Fisher

8. Keating M. Oblique central refraction in 25. Warden L, Dreher A, Ferro J, Jethmalani J,

spherocylindrical corrections with both Lai S. System for manufacturing an optical
faceform and pantoscopic tilt. Optom Vis Sci lens. US Patent 7,234,810, 2007.
1995; 72: 258–265. 26. Guirao A, Williams D, Cox I. Effect of rota-
9. Ramamoorthy P, Sheedy J, Hayes J. Visual tion and translation on the expected
needs predict PAL preference. Optom Vis Sci benefit of an ideal method to correct the
2006; 83: E-abstract 060079. eye’s higher order aberrations. J Opt Soc Am
10. Sheedy J. Progressive addition lenses: A 2001; 18: 1003–1015.
matching the specific lens to patient needs. 27. Thibos N, Hong X, Bradley A, Applegate R.
Optometry 2004; 75: 83–102. Accuracy and precision of objective refrac-
11. Afanador A. The range of eye movements tion from wavefront aberrations. J Vision
through progressive multifocals. Optom Mon 2004; 4: 329–351.
1982; 73: 82–87.
12. Fuller J. Head movement propensity. Exp Corresponding author:
Brain Res 1992; 92: 152–164.
13. Hutchings N, Irving E, Jung N, Dowling L,
Scott W Fisher
Wells K. Eye and head movement alter- Research and Development
ations in naïve progressive addition lens Carl Zeiss Vision
wearers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007; 27: 19 Cooroora Crescent
142–153. Lonsdale SA 5160
14. Han Y, Ciuffreda K, Selenow A, Bauer E, Ali
S, Spencer W. Static aspects of eye and head
AUSTRALIA
movements during reading in a simulated E-mail: scott.fisher@vision.zeiss.com
computer-based environment with single-
vision and progressive lenses. Invest Ophthal-
mol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 145–153.
15. Mukaiyama H, Kato K, Komatsu A, Kaga T.
Multifocal Lens for Eyeglass and Eyeglass
Lens. US Patent 5,926,250, 1999.
16. American National Standards. American
National Standard for Ophthalmics—
Methods for reporting optical aberrations
of eyes. ANSI Z80.28–2004.
17. Atchison D. Recent advances in measure-
ment of monochromatic aberrations of
human eyes. Clin Exp Optom 2005; 88:
5–27.
18. Atchison D. Recent advances in representa-
tion of monochromatic aberrations of
human eyes. Clin Exp Optom 2004; 87: 138–
148.
19. Sheedy J, Campbell C, King-Smith E, Hayes
J. Progressive powered lenses: the Minkwitz
theorem. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 1–9.
20. Blendowske R, Villegas E, Artal P. An ana-
lytical model describing aberrations in the
progression corridor of progressive addi-
tion lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 666–671.
21. Wehner E, Welk A, Haimerl W, Altheimer
H, Esser G. Spectacle Lens with Small
Higher Order Aberrations. US Patent
7,063,421, 2006.
22. Villegas E, Artal P. Comparison of aberra-
tions in different types of progressive power
lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004; 24: 419–
426.
23. Villegas E, Artal P. spatially resolved
wavefront aberrations of ophthalmic
progressive-powered lenses in normal
viewing conditions. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80:
109–112.
24. Villegas E, Artal P. Visual acuity and optical
parameters in progressive-power lenses.
Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 672–681.

Clinical and Experimental Optometry 91.3 May 2008 © 2008 Carl Zeiss Vision
264 Journal compilation © 2008 Optometrists Association Australia